Our future rests on the public and science working collaboratively, argues astronomer
'The crises confronting the world can't be tackled without better-directed science,' says Sir Martin Rees
Many of our most profound problems need solutions that only science can offer. But that can make things even trickier — because society's relationship with science is complicated.
Our lives may be thoroughly infused with — and embedded in — science and technology, but misinformation and distrust of science, and scientists, run rampant, much of it stoked by what we do with our pocket-sized packets of supercharged science called smartphones.
Martin Rees is one of the world's most eminent astronomers. He serves as Astronomer Royal in the U.K., along with being a member of the House of Lords. He argues that it's essential for the future of humanity that the public and science engage with each other more closely and collaboratively.
His latest book is called If Science is to Save Us. IDEAS host Nahlah Ayed spoke with Rees and she began by asking about times when science has saved us in the past.
Here is an excerpt of their conversation.
MR: Well, of course, the most obvious thing I'd say is that the population of the world has doubled in the last 50 years. And around 1970, there were books written by the Club of Rome and by Paul Ehrlich, who claimed that the mass starvation in the 1970s and 80s.
But of course, the Green Revolution did enable more food to be grown. And it's true that there is starvation in many parts of the world now, but it's due to maldistribution, or wars, not to overall food shortage. So that's the most obvious case where if we hadn't had modern science, the world population would not have been able to grow to as much as a billion.
So that was the science that did the saving. But what is it about that particular situation or that particular knowledge that made it possible to save us?
Well, I think we've got to bear in mind that science is a way of understanding the world. And understanding the world is a precondition for being able to change the world. The changes which science enables us to do can be beneficial, but can also be disastrous. And the main thing is to choose among the various things that science can do and ensure we can secure the benefits and minimize the downsides.
But I think if we look at the modern world we know how it depends, obviously, on 19th-century discoveries like electricity, and also on 20th-century discoveries. And some of those — nuclear, for instance, have been potentially disastrous as well. And of course, telecommunications, which has changed the world completely, especially now, and computers. These are adaptations of technology in a very sophisticated way which empower us in all kinds of ways.
The other thing that's happened is that medicine has not cured all diseases but it's allowed average life expectancy to increase; it's greatly decreased infant mortality, etc. And on the whole, I think we would say that science has benefited us in a way that indicates that we've made use of the good things it can do and avoided the most disastrous things you could have done.
And of course, there's no greater example of medical intervention in improving our lives than the most recent one, which is the discovery or the formulation of vaccines with the pandemic.
Well, that's right. Although some people would say that the propensity to mass pandemics is a consequence of the fact that we can travel more and the pandemics can spread from one continent to another due to aircraft. So the fact that a pandemic can spread globally is, of course, a downside of the development of technology.
But, as you say, the achievement of vaccines within a year was a great achievement, especially if you realize that we don't have a vaccine for HIV even after 40 years.
I think in many ways in our society, the irony or the instability of holding those two thoughts in our mind of science being both beneficial and negative is one of the biggest problems of our time.
Yes, but it's not surprising, is it — really? Because science is ethically neutral as such, and the way we apply it depends on the social organization and economic organization. Obviously, science has enabled weaponry of war to get more catastrophic, but also it's provided all these benefits.
But do you, I guess in terms of thinking about what the compact is between society and scientists, is it your belief that science is still in a position to save us?
Yes, I think so. But of course, you talk about the compact. I think a manifestation of that is governments feel it's worthwhile to support lots of science education in universities, to support research institutes, to develop new technology, etc. And I think we are in a world where the dangers are growing. They're growing because we have a larger population, a population which is more demanding of energy resources. And we do have to ensure that everyone could be fed. We want to extend life expectancy if we can, at least minimize premature deaths.
Of course, high on the agenda now is coping with climate change. And that certainly needs the development of new clean technology. Many of the basic ideas that are needed for that already exist, but actually turning them into some economical way of generating energy, not just in the developed countries of the North, but in the Global South, is a huge challenge to technology and politics.
How much do you think science needs to save us from ourselves?
Well, I think in the ways I've been discussing that if it's applied beneficially, it can help. But of course, all the weapons which have been devised are in a sense, developed from scientific ideas, supremely the nuclear bomb. And so obviously they can be used dangerously.
If we look at what's happened in the 21st century, I worry very much about the misuse of biotech, because the same kind of knowledge which allowed us to identify the virus of COVID-19 and to produce a vaccine against it, would allow scientists of evil intent to develop a virus more virulent and more transmissible than natural ones.
*Q&A edited for clarity and length. This episode was produced by Chris Wodskou.
